Don't Make Children Cry (Part 1)

Brian Brown claims that pro-equality protesters in Providence intimidated children and made them cry. Now I’m suspicious, because I’ve seen video from NOM. I’ve seen arguments and shouting and a mother complaining of a scary, extended encounter that somehow mysteriously was not itself taped (what could explain that?). But I haven’t seen the crying children Brian talks about.

Nevertheless, I can say this: Don’t fuck with kids. You already know how I cringe at people mocking Maggie Gallagher for her weight. And you know why. You can only imagine how I’d react if I saw someone deliberately frightening a child or making one cry. If that person were on my side of the protest, I would do everything I could to shut down that protest until the child was safe. And felt safe. Then we’d have to deal with the person responsible.

If this really went down the way Brian Brown says — if he really has video proving it, and I mean raw footage, not a heavily edited PR fantasy — then it’s reprehensible. Now all Brian has to do is give me a reason to believe him.

23 comments to Don’t Make Children Cry (Part 1)

You already know how I cringe at people mocking Maggie Gallagher for her weight. And you know why.

Yes — because it ruins your PR spin.

You can only imagine how I’d react if I saw someone deliberately frightening a child or making one cry.

Yup: “Omigod! This is a PR disaster!”

If that person were on my side of the protest, I would do everything I could to shut down that protest until the child was safe.

Translation: I would knock down and beat up the camera person nearby, and make sure that all the reporters didn’t show it.

And felt safe. Then we’d have to deal with the person responsible.

Yup; you would usher them away and then tell them, “Yeah, man! Way to go! You really made that kid bawl! Way to stick it to the homophobes!”

Seriously, Rob. You can’t even condemn dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs. You spent an entire post ostensibly about a gay man who was adopting children and selling them on the Internet as sexual slaves whining about how mean the people reporting on it were.

We get it. You care about children, but in the same way you care about any other PR prop. If it advances your message, fine, if it doesn’t, you don’t give a damn.

Ah, I see the crazies have discovered your blog. Simply means your blog is getting noticed. Along with the good must come the bad. Life is about balance.

A mature, rational person does not engage a child in a debate. Then again it is poor parenting, by both sides, to bring children to these rallies. Kids are not political pawns and should not be used as such. Some protests/events are simply not kid appropriate. Groups such as NOM who obsess about someone else’s sex life have a high probability of attracting mentally unstable people. Kids shouldn’t be around mentally unstable people.

I agree 100% that we shouldn’t make kids cry, though I think this is typical right-wing nonsense of taking one example and turning it into a trend (see, e.g., one gay person abuses a child, suddenly ALL gay people abuse children and want to fuck turtles.)

But for every kid made to cry at a protest, there are tens of thousands who’ve been made to cry by the constant drumbeat of “you aren’t healthy, you are sick, Jesus hates you, you’re going to burn in hell forever.”

I agree 100% that we shouldn’t make kids cry, though I think this is typical right-wing nonsense of taking one example and turning it into a trend (see, e.g., one gay person abuses a child, suddenly ALL gay people abuse children and want to fuck turtles.)

And when one person with a sign showing nooses shows up at a NOM rally, all NOM members and anyone who opposes gay marriage want to lynch gays.

After all, that’s completely acceptable logic among gay and lesbian people, and Rob engages in it regularly.

“And when one person with a sign showing nooses shows up at a NOM rally, all NOM members and anyone who opposes gay marriage want to lynch gays.”

You’re an idiot. And you only see what you want to see. Rob never said that anyone who opposes gay marriage wants to lynch gays. In fact, he’s said exactly the opposite here: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/no-h8

Thirty, you really just make things up and that’s obvious to anyone who reads your stuff. What’s frightening is that it’s not obvious to you too.

It’s funny. When one NOM supporter says something ridiculous or takes a violent stance then we are instructed not to attribute those words or actions to the entire group who support NOM. However, when a gay person does something bad then folks such as NDT want to attribute that behavior to all gay people. Sorry to disappoint NDT but Ive never stolen anything and I’ve always argued that people who steal should be prosecuted. However, white collar crime is not taken seriously in this country. Steal $100 from a convenience store while using a gun and you go to prison for life. Steal $100 million from investors/shareholders by using a pen and you go to a federal country club for a few years to rest and relax. Society would be better served if NDT discussed this disparity in punishment rather than fixating on his sexuality and focusing on the sexual orientation of the embezzlers.

ND30’s argument in a nutshell: Rob Tisinai is responsible for everything every homosexual has ever said, regardless of where or when it was said. NOM and other anti-gay organizations are not responsible for any violent sentiments expressed by members or anyone who agrees with them.

Rob, have to point out that your feelings about mockery and ridicule of others is your own. You must know that in the public sphere ugliness exist and we can’t control who gets caught in the line of fire. I blame the parents if their children “made to cry”. What kind of parent would bring a child to such an event, knowing the kind of things that have the possiblity of happening. Quite frankly, the Dept of Children should be called as these parents are making conscious choices to endanger their children. If there is a war going on you don’t bring the babies to see the fireworks.
Of course I also have to point out that it sounds to me like these people are looking for the “new’s moment” and are willing to use their kids to get it. Of course I also blame the GLBT protestors for playing right into it. Stupidness all the way around.
Oh hell, just to play. Really NDT, you have nothing better than to hang out on a gay man’s blog. Strange.

When one NOM supporter says something ridiculous or takes a violent stance then we are instructed not to attribute those words or actions to the entire group who support NOM.

Which is, of course, why you’re out there making up graphics for NOM with nooses on them.

However, when a gay person does something bad then folks such as NDT want to attribute that behavior to all gay people.

It’s called consistency. You want to claim all gay-sex marriage opponents want to lynch people based on one person’s sign, others can claim all gay-sex marriage supporters are traitors and embezzlers based on one gay-sex marriage supporter’s actions.

Or you can act in a manner consistent with a hypocritical double standard and make a complete fool out of yourself. It would have been smarter for Rob to think before he acted, but that doesn’t win you brownie points in the gay-sex liberal world.

However, white collar crime is not taken seriously in this country. Steal $100 from a convenience store while using a gun and you go to prison for life. Steal $100 million from investors/shareholders by using a pen and you go to a federal country club for a few years to rest and relax.

That is entirely consistent with the left’s attitude. Look at Barack Obama’s own Chicago, where gun owners are demonized and criminalized while people like Rezko, Blagojevich, Pritzker, and Giannoulias who steal millions from honest people are not only lionized, but feted by the Obama Party and Barack Obama himself.

Next up:

Quite frankly, the Dept of Children should be called as these parents are making conscious choices to endanger their children. If there is a war going on you don’t bring the babies to see the fireworks.

Or you can act in a manner consistent with a hypocritical double standard and make a complete fool out of yourself.

That’s an almost perfect description of your own behavior, although you left out fabricating things that back up your perspective.

You want to claim all gay-sex marriage opponents want to lynch people based on one person’s sign…

I would say you want to claim people you don’t like are dishonest and violent, but you’ve actually done that, so it would be more appropriate to say you want to continue making that claim.

The point, again, is that NOM members had a chance to repudiate a sign calling for the death penalty for homosexuals and they chose not to. They even spoke to the sign holder, telling him not to say anything “inflammatory” to the press, because apparently they didn’t consider his sign to be inflammatory. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Which is, of course, why you’re out there making up graphics for NOM with nooses on them.

As previously stated, NOM members didn’t condemn the sign advocating the death penalty for homosexuals. And it was, originally, a NOM supporter who made a sign with a noose on it. If you’re going to complain about double standards, though, please go back and check some of your comments in a previous post in which you interpreted “confrontational” to mean “violent”. At least Rob’s graphic was based on a sign that was actually held up at a NOM rally. Your views are based on what you imagine some signs might have said.

I would say you want to claim people you don’t like are dishonest and violent, but you’ve actually done that, so it would be more appropriate to say you want to continue making that claim.

Generally, I tend to like people unless they’re dishonest and violent.

The point, again, is that NOM members had a chance to repudiate a sign calling for the death penalty for homosexuals and they chose not to. They even spoke to the sign holder, telling him not to say anything “inflammatory” to the press, because apparently they didn’t consider his sign to be inflammatory. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

So again, you’re saying that they didn’t confront the guy. Then you’re saying that they did confront him, but it wasn’t good enough. Then you’re whining about “extrapolating” while insisting that all gay marriage opponents want to kill gays based on this one individual’s sign.

It’s not hard to understand for someone who’s observed it for a while; you’re gay, so you’ve been brought up to believe that your minority status makes everything you say right and rationalizes every behavior you have. But here in the enlightened real world, that doesn’t jibe with what everyone else is doing and simply makes you look like an idiot.

Oh, yes. Every kid deserves a mother and a father. Of course, when a parent is stupid enough to bring their kid to one of the sew rallies, I’m left wondering, “What did these kids do to deserve this mother and father?”

It’s parents like this who are our greatest ally. They prove that parenting skills are not related to sexual orientation.

So again, you’re saying that they didn’t confront the guy. Then you’re saying that they did confront him, but it wasn’t good enough. Then you’re whining about “extrapolating” while insisting that all gay marriage opponents want to kill gays based on this one individual’s sign.

“Whining”? Resorting to sarcasm doesn’t help your case, ND30. It certainly doesn’t make you look smart. As for what I said, please read it more carefully. I did say NOM members didn’t “confront” the guy, which is true. They spoke to him. They asked him not to say anything “inflammatory”. They didn’t ask him to put away his sign, and they didn’t criticize the sign’s message. What part of this are you missing?

As for my “extrapolating”, again, please read carefully. You’re assuming that the signs that Rob asked people to put away before the post-Prop 8 vigil had “violent” messages. Perhaps “extrapolating” is the wrong word to describe what you were doing there. In retrospect it’s more accurate to say you were making an assumption based on what you would like to be true even though you have no evidence for it.